Tourism Studies and The Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology For The Inscriptive/Projective Industry

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/323326475
Tourism Studies and the Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology

for the Inscriptive/Projective Industry
Chapter · February 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-7491-2_3
CITATIONS READS
6 182
2 authors:
Keith Hollinshead Rukeya Suleman

INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR University of Bedfordshire
95 PUBLICATIONS 2,356 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 90 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Keith Hollinshead on 27 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 3
Tourism Studies and the Lost Mandates
of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology
for the Inscriptive/Projective Industry
Keith Hollinshead and Rukeya Suleman
Abstract This chapter tracks its companion chapter on ‘ontology’ by scrutinising

epistemological concerns in advanced qualitative research (or rather in critico-
interpretive inquiry) in Tourism Studies in Asia. It labels epistemology as the meta-
physical endeavour to inspect the manner by which (within a society or institution)
knowledge is procured, i.e. how it is won, secured, and turned into ‘truth’. In it,
tourism is adjudged to be an involved political arena where many different actors
think variously about the cultural/social/environmental/psychic/other complexities
of travel and respond differently to vogue representations of space and place. To
deal with these contested outlooks on the inscribed drawcards/projected narratives
of tourism – and map the epistemological fault lines of embedded populations and
interest groups – the chapter calls for new imagination in the metaphysics of know-
ing. In demanding regular engagement with ‘open’ and ‘critical’ inquiry, it particu-
larly advocates experimentation with transdisciplinary and postdisciplinary
approaches to capture ‘old Asian mandates of knowing’ (often lost under the weight
of Western/Eurocentric certitudes in the marketplace of tourism or in the Tourism
Studies academy) but also to corral emergent/hybridised/transitional forms of ‘new
Asian knowing’, today. In this light, the work of Indian-born cultural theorist Homi
Bhabha is harnessed to help those who operate within tourism (or who research the
felt/the said/the known per tourism) in the involved double hermeneutics of truth-
making, viz. to not only know how a society knows things but how a researcher
herself/himself reflexively knows that.
K. Hollinshead (*) · R. Suleman

Business School, The University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
e-mail: khdeva@btopenworld.com; rukeya.suleman@beds.ac.uk
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 51

P. Mura, C. Khoo-Lattimore (eds.), Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism,
Perspectives on Asian Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7491-2_3
52 K. Hollinshead and R. Suleman
Keywords Fluid acumen · Plural knowability · Emic(s)/Etic(s) · Double hermeneutics

· Knowledge procurement · Transdisciplinary approaches · Postdisciplinary
approaches · Reflexivity
3.1 I ntroduction: Knowledge in Tourism Scenarios

and the Reflexive Researcher
This chapter on ‘epistemology’ serves as a companion chapter to the previous

chapter in this book on ‘ontology’. As has been shown in that prior chapter, ontology
is that arena of metaphysics – where metaphysics comprises the realm of philosophy
which cogitates on the overall character or the principle/first form of things –
involved in identifying the sorts of objects and subjects that are seen to exist in a
given society or institutional order of seeing. Thus, ontological deliberations ques-
tion what the nature of existence is in terms of the held beliefs and aspirations of
that society/that institution. In contract, epistemology is the arena of metaphysics
that probes the profile and character of knowledge, itself, vis-à-vis its scope and
possibilities as seen by that community/group/people. Thus, this follow-up chapter
on epistemology will largely concern itself with questions such as:
• How does a particular society/institution go about knowing things?
• How does that society/institution distinguish what is deemed to be ‘true’ from
what is deemed to be ‘false’?
• How does that society/institution systematically resolve what is deemed to be
‘good’, there, from what is deemed to be ‘bad’?
Consequently, the previous chapter (on ontology) inspected what is true (or
believed in) ‘out there’ while the current chapter (on epistemology) inspects the
approaches and trajectories that are used to figure out those held truths and deter-
mine what that specific population takes to be (or ‘knows’) is indeed ‘out there’.
One could crudely suggest, thereby, that ontological matters are almost platonic
(after Plato) matters of ‘religion’, while epistemological matters are akin to
Aristotelian (after Aristotle) matters of ‘science’.
Since this chapter is housed in a book traversing the pure and applied territories
of qualitative research, much of the material aired in it will cover the effort to dis-
tinguish between hegemonic objective understandings about what is known (and
how it is found out) and particularistic or subjective understandings, and much of
the chapter’s coverage will pivot upon the tensions and the contradictions which
exist in the epistemological endeavour to capture the points of view held by partici-
pants in the inspected society/in the encountered institution.
This is a chapter which will thereby lead the reader into frequent and deep ques-
tioning about the expertise of the researcher to methodologically inquire into the
held perspectives about the world that are present in Asia, and it will draw him/her
into the need these days for researchers to not only map the multiple truths which
3 Tourism Studies and the Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology… 53
are increasingly hailed in specific places but to harness informed degrees of ethno-
aesthetic insight to determine how those various truths are found/reached/adjudged
by the specific populations/groups that uphold them. Thus, this chapter on episte-
mology will concern itself with the incremental need of those who work in Tourism
Studies to develop the fluid acumen (after Jaramillo and McLaren 2008:198) to
determine how the so-called tourist gaze works as a knowledge-maker in Asia and
where and when particular private sector corporations or public sector bodies act as
influential agents of normalcy to protect/essentialise/naturalise some understand-
ings about culture, or heritage, or nature over competing vistas about them (see
Hollinshead and Suleman (2017) on the distinct need for fluid acumen within
Tourism Studies, especially in postcolonial/decolonising settings). Consequently,
this chapter on epistemology (i.e. on the ways in which methodological knowledge
is won, is made secure, and is turned into esteemed ‘truth’) is not only a chapter
about the macro-power and micropower activities of influential individuals in the
inspected societies/institutions to make/to create/to deny various forms of knowing,
it is also necessarily about the macro-power and micropower of researchers to
assess that very knowledge-making/that very meaning-making/that very truth-
making, themselves. Much of this chapter on epistemology in qualitative research
therefore revolves the reflexive capacity of the researcher or the research team to
self-regulate her/his/its own methodological choices as to how they will examine
the knowledge-producing gaze or scopic drive (see Hollinshead and Kuon 2013:
15–16) of tourism.
It is important to look at the role and function of epistemology vis-à-vis tourism
because tourism is not just merely a playful realm of sun, sand, and sex but a some-
times grand-and-stupendous/sometimes contained-and-subtle maker and breaker of
esteemed knowledges. Its quotidian mongering of icons, fantasies, and flights of
fancy (be they seeded in culture, heritage, spirituality, nature, whatever) lends it
prolific worldmaking power (Hollinshead 2009) as it versions – or helps version –
locations and peoples. Not only is the mythomoteur authority (after McKay 1994) a
visual matter of the scopic drive of tourism (Urry 1990) and its ‘eye dialectics’
(Hollinshead and Kuon 2013), but it is a cognitive matter of ‘knowledge dialectics’.
Principally, its sometimes mundane, its sometimes over-celebratory, and its some-
times highly deterministic collaborative projection of place and space lends its rep-
resentational repertoires and its representational systems (Hall 1997) prodigious
influence not just over encoded ‘perceptions’ but over resultant decode ‘deposito-
ries of knowledge’ – something which for Afro-Asian (or Asian-African?) contexts
Picard (2011) has traced for the transfiguration of La Réunion in the Indian Ocean.
It is critical, therefore, that Tourism Studies scholars monitor the scope and limits of
signification in tourism and hence how knowledge is acquired and possessed
through tourism.
In offering these paragraphs on epistemological activity in qualitative research,
the aim is not so much to generate general or overall ‘tight prescriptions’ as to how
researchers in Asia (or researchers from wherever who inspect Asia) should go
about their epistemological work, for such reflexive work on the connectivities
between epistemology and ontology is rarely ever a clean and clear puzzle to be
solved, but rather it is an ongoing and highly contextual ‘problem’ to be engaged

and re-engaged several times over on the given study. In order to thereby stress that
Tourism Studies researchers do indeed need to cultivate their context-responsive
and globalisation-sensitive/glocalisation-sensible fluid acumen in our fast-changing
times, the chapter will spend considerable time addressing the hermeneutics of
knowing – or loosely speaking, of the interpretive process within a given institu-
tional setting or cultural context by and through which claimed textual meaning is
‘found’ and ‘identified’ (Barker 2004: 85–6). It will seek to do this:
• Firstly, by examining a little more thoroughly what ‘epistemology’ is per se.
• Secondly, by regarding tourism as generally being a rather complex matter
(involving many different players who think differentially and who act differen-
tially up/down/along the routinely extensive and the regularly spreadeagled
chain of distribution of tourism) and thus by positioning it as an involved realm
of activity and counter-activity for which transdisciplinary lines of inquiry have
been insufficiently harnessed.
• Thirdly, by noting that while so much of the instrumentality of tourism in Asia
has been governed via Western/North Atlantic orientations – see the previous
chapter on concerns about eurocentrist ontology, here – there is distinct need to
also cultivate much more commonplace postdisciplinary critiques of events,
developments, and impulses in tourism across Asia. Thus, this chapter argues (as
did the previous chapter) for the cultivation of lines of inquiry which are decid-
edly more free from Western imperatives and which are conceivably more open
to be able to capture the perhaps ‘impaired’/perhaps ‘under-recognised’/perhaps
‘suppressed’ Asian mandates of knowing (after Snyder 1974:77) which have
been lost or chastised in tourism and within Tourism Studies under the weight of
Eurocentric master narratives.
Nota Bene: Lost Mandates of Knowing
As a point of clarification, it should be revealed or recognised that a mandate of
knowing is not just the distinct cultural warrants or the particular societal doxa (i.e.
the hailed understandings) that a specific population has, but it may be seen to also
be the mythic and institutional apparatuses that sustain those very knowledges.
Thus lost mandates of knowing are those inherited and longstanding perceptions/
customs/cognitions which have been put in peril or rendered dismissible by new
governing bodies, notably by colonial authorities or neocolonial agencies who have
risen or arrived in that part of the world and which have (partly through design,
partly through ignorance) indecently assimilated, improperly, appropriated, or infe-
licitously abolished the indigenous/local knowledges ‘there’. Consonantly, in the
current context, lost mandates of knowing in Asia tend to be those ways of being/
seeing/believing which have been exploited or damaged via (perhaps) the structures
of imperial aggression that might course through tourism and related inscriptive
industries. Such dethinking or unthinking on the part of those wielding master
narratives – and such resultant amnesiatics – might be propelled by (perhaps) the
culturally blind mechanisms of the Western-dominated marketplace of tourism,
by the dull history-deaf instruments of fast capitalism, or otherwise by the
well-meaning but undialectical (and consequentially toxic) reach of the schooled

whitestream mind (after Grande 2008, on the dehumanisation of ‘Indian’ [Amer-
Indian] inheritances in North America). Thus, recovered mandates of knowing are
often those now-interruptive or now-rekindled customs and cognitions which are
somehow recovered either through loud forms of ‘warrior activism’ within the
representational industries or otherwise through the quiet and gradual re-ascription
of old/previously longstanding or freshly hybridised and newly enervated identities.
And during the coming decades of the twenty-first century, sites of regional,
national, and international tourism may be an important strategic battleground for
such corrective or enunciatory projections of selfhood.
3.2 ackground: Elaboration – Extended Comments

B
on ‘Epistemology’
It is the considered view of Denscombe (2002:5,19) that too few social scientists are
seasoned in not only the ontological foundations of their research but also in its
epistemological aspects. To Vasilachis De Giadino (1992:52), it is vital that social
scientists who conduct qualitative lines of inquiry do indeed embrace epistemologi-
cal matters in order to:
• Firstly, help resist their own possible unthinking or weakly engaged stances in
the research effort and thereby possibly in their own axiomatic naturalisation and
inherent ‘universalisation’ of the social world (i.e. of all social worlds).
• Secondly, get to relevantly and sensitively interpret the idiosyncratic knowledge-
making practices of different lifeworlds.
• Thirdly, learn how to steadily and carefully transition from an external (etic) to
an internal (emic) worldview in the found research setting, where or when deep
insider sensibilities are known or suspected of being significant – but where that
transition is never a fast and pre-mappable or easy activity (Headland et al. 1990).
• Fourthly, recognise the pervasive presence of the double hermeneutics of inter-
pretive inquiry (viz. where or when the researcher has to acknowledge that not
only are the cultural objects of others socially/institutionally constructed but that
the researcher herself/himself is unavoidably involved in ‘this game’ of making
social/institutional constructions about those very cultural constructions himself/
herself [see Routledge (2009:389) on ‘double hermeneutics’ and Pernecky
(2016: 98–105) for a useful account of hermeneutic realism].
Just as there is no single way to legitimately conduct qualitative research in gen-
eral, so there is also a wide variety of ways to epistemologically capture what is
known, what may be known, and how it is known (Vasilachis de Giadino 2009:4).
Principally, the approaches which a researcher takes will be heavily influenced by:
• The characteristics of who and what is being studied (especially with regard to
(i) the customs and habits of the people and (ii) the composition and makeup of
the found contexts)
• The characteristics of the ‘already known’ (reflexively-speaking) or ‘available’

research methods
• The goal of the inquiry (Vasilachis de Giadino 2009:5)
While the ontological effort in research targets the social realities that different
populations see or experience, the epistemological effort targets the ways in which
knowledge (itself) is created and disseminated both by the population/institution
and by the observing researcher. While ontological inquiry probes whether things
exist or do not exist, epistemological inquiry delves into how knowledge is procured
about them, viz. what is the nature of that knowledge and what are its limits. Hence
the Oxford University Press (2006:584) dictionary defines epistemology as ‘the
theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and
[also] the distinction between justified belief and [mere] opinion’. Consonantly, a
researcher who is seeking to pry into epistemological matters relating to tourism in
Asia might fruitfully explore:
• Matters of belief
Why does population ‘A’ think that facts ‘xyz’ indeed constitute knowledge?
• Matters of truth
What is conceivably the most advantageous procedural approach and modes of
thinking to harness in order to best discover the held or esteemed truths which
population ‘B’ holds about (for instance) nature?
• Matters of practice
What are the simplest ways a researcher can readily/easily understand what is
deemed to be ‘true’ in mundane everyday settings for population ‘C’?
To these ends, the following cardinal questions – modified from a list in the
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford2005), punctuated
hereunder by the thought-lines of Vasilachis de Giadino (2009) – may be embraced
in epistemological inquiry:
1. In terms of inquiry into knowledge, per se:
(i) What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge?
For example, how can a given or an encountered ‘reality’ be known?
(ii) What are the sources of knowledge?
For example, what is the relationship between the knower and the known
and between the knower and those sources in the examined setting?
(iii) What is the structure of knowledge and therefore of its limits?
For example, what are the characteristics/the principles/the assumptions
that guide these processes of knowing for the studied population?
2. In terms of inquiry into justified belief, per se:
(i) How can we understand the local or exhibited concept of justification?
For example, what is the likelihood of the process of justification being
shared by others – and by which others at the particular where and when?
(ii) What makes particular local or encountered beliefs justified?

For example, how reliable are the interpreted findings about local/
encountered beliefs?
(iii) Is the found form of justification a local/emic/internal or even an intro-
spective one (i.e. within the mind of individuals ‘there’), or is it based on
external or more generalised etic understandings?
For example, is the found form of justification based predominantly on
local forms of memory/reason/testimony or otherwise upon broader and
more widespread forms of social/religious/moral/naturalised epistemology?
A rising tide of contemporary commentators on epistemological awareness
strongly supports the view that epistemological understanding is at its most useful
when it seen to be a highly contextualised/population-specific/time-specific mat-
ter. In this vein, commentators like Schmidt (2001) tend to retreat from hunting
down ‘universal’ or ‘broadly normative’ forms of epistemological awareness
where the craft of epistemology is akin to being a highly disciplined procedure
that generates ‘finished’ understandings of and about things. Such reflective (and
refreshing) epistemologists are inclined to view the pursuit of acts of belief-mak-
ing/truth justification/practical ‘everyday doxa determination’ as necessarily
reflexive and creative endeavours for which the observing analyst must be pains-
takingly persistent in order to examine particular contexts time and time again.
While critico-interpretive researchers may seek to win thick description (after the
anthropologists Geertz: see Greenblatt (1997:15–18), here), the effort to gain a or
any thick description about the lived experience of others (in general) and the
knowledge-making process of others (in particular) is something of “a will-of-
the-wisp activity” (Becker 1996) that involves the fastidious interpretation of
interpretations – the mercurial double hermeneutics, again! – which ought to be
highly respective of the increasingly pluralistic mood and open-ended perspec-
tivities of the contemporary moment. To Becker, then, the endeavours to seek
fully descriptive epistemological accounts are much more preferable than the old,
functional/behaviourist/totalised approaches of positivism (where skimpy ‘thin’
but easily calibrated descriptions are deemed to be adequate). But he warns that
full descriptions in qualitative research are very much an ignis fatuus – i.e. a chi-
maera or dreamland illusion – that may be aimed for in the field but impossible to
totally achieve and concretely satisfy. Thus to Becker, it is sensible to aim for
‘breadth’ about the target matter of knowing over its applications and contexts
rather than to aim comprehensively for ‘thick’ or ‘full’ description.
The inherent idea that has perhaps undergirded everything that has so far been
stated in this chapter is that, in social science, all scientific understandings are con-
structed by and within scientific communities. What constitutes knowledge and
knowledge production is regarded differently within particular social science
paradigms (such as positivism/postpositivism/constructivism-cum-interpretivism/
critico-
ideologicalism) (Ponterotto and Grieger (2007)). In this light, what is
deemed to be bona fide inquiry in terms of rigour comprises a decision that must
relate not only to the singular study objectives but to the governing paradigmatic
assumptions which the researcher/research team is working under and within
(Haverkamp and Young 2007). For objectivists (under such realist worldviews of
positivism, neopositivism, etc.), ‘knowledge is [held to be] stable because the essen-
tial properties of objects are knowable and relatively unchanging … and meaning
that is produced by these thought processes is external to the understander, and is
determined by the [actual] structure of the real world’ (Jonassen, cited in Gergen
(2016)). But under the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm(s), knowledge and
reality do not have objective or absolute values for we do not have a way of decid-
edly knowing what this reality is ought to be. To Von Glaserfeld (cited in Gergen,
ibid) then, under interpretivism/constructivism, the knower interprets and constructs
a reality based on his or her experiences and interactions with the local environment
in question, and to him/her, the truth is no clean and clear mirror of reality: ‘To the
[interpretivist and to the] constructivist, concepts, model, theories, and so on are
[only] viable if they prove adequate in the [specific] contexts in which they were
created’. Consequently, those who may wish to explore the different social realities
in which particular populations in Asia ‘exist’, and those who wish to explore the
different contexts/events/milieux in which those populations respond, are increas-
ingly drawn towards approaches nested within the interpretivist/constructivist para-
digm, but the practice is not at all exclusive, given the lingering authority of
positivism across social science, and the more-easily communicable capacity of the
calibrative realisms of neopositivism, i.e. a refined version of positivism with its
rather more guarded warranted assertibilities (Phillips 1990).
This background elaboration regarding knowledge about knowledge production
within the epistemology of things has paid solid respect to the dictum of Giambattista
Vico that verum esse ipsum factum (‘the true is precisely what is made’) (see
Wikipedia (2016) for an accessible and versatile account of Vico’s ideas, or other-
wise – for a more rigorous treatment of the epistemological making of knowledge,
and of the differences between explicit and tacit knowledges or between proposi-
tional and empirical knowledges – see Cambridge University Press (1999: 273–
274). This background section of the chapter has thus so far addressed the view that
epistemology is that pivotal arm of metaphysics which examines procurement, viz.
how knowledge is procured rather than merely found. In qualitative research –
which is principally sustained by the various sorts of information/insight/intelli-
gence provided by the people who participate in the given study – it is thereby
incumbent upon the researcher (epistemologically) to engage in collaborative forms
of knowledge construction with the people involved in the study settings and con-
texts. According to Vasilachis de Giadino (2009:13), this important interpretive
cooperation will routinely necessitate:
• Recognising that the initial choice of research paradigm conditions the whole
inquiry process vis-à-vis reality and any opportunity for of multiple
interpretations
• Learning about knowing ‘with’ the other not ‘about’ the other
• Making ‘broad’ (or ‘thick’, where possible – i.e. subject to the aforementioned
circumspection of Becker about the difficulties involved in obtaining fully thick
descriptions) identifications of and about those others possible to see and avail-
able to inspect.
Hence epistemological work is not merely a matter of rendering the knowledge-
making that is embedded within en groupe cultural forms of art/artefact/cultural
activities manifest, but it is also very much about rendering the knowledge-making
that is embedded within the art, the artefact, or the activity of the adopted line of
qualitative inquiry manifest, too. Consonantly, there are tall demands upon the
qualitative research epistemologist to be demonstrable and show his/her workings
in this very research procurement of knowledge. He/she must demonstrably show
how he/she has indeed seemingly produced credible believable interpretations
‘with’ the other that have been studied (Becker 1996): here, the craft of demonstra-
bility rules – or ought to!!
Much of the rest of this chapter will now revolve around these matters of
collaborative procurement. It is based on assumption that, in each and every study
context or en groupe setting, there is no pure ‘scientific’ knowledge already out
there (almost in prepackaged form) to be readily and easily gained. The rest of the
chapter is predicated upon the view that no knowledges declare themselves axiom-
atically or proactively ‘proceed from themselves’ in unequivocal fashion, for all
knowledge is ‘constructed’. While the ontological effort (as aired in the previous
chapter) inspects what is true, the epistemological effort accordingly examines
methods of figuring out how those held truths actually became true. And in terms of
the double hermeneutics being traversed, here, the rest of this chapter on epistemol-
ogy will predominately scrutinise the particular capacity of ‘transdisciplinary’
efforts and then those of ‘postdisciplinary’ endeavours to carry out that procurement-
vis-à-vis tourism culture and society in Asia.
3.3 ocus – Conjoint and Coherent Forms of Knowledge-

F
Making: Two Open Styles of ‘Disciplinary’ Inquiry
So far in this chapter, we have outlined some of the relevant trends in qualitative
research which have a distinct bearing upon practices of ontology and epistemol-
ogy, and we have emphasised the rising call for fluid acumen (or plural knowabil-
ity; see Hollinshead and Ivanova (2013)) in helping decipher the dynamic interests
and aspirations of people today within the increasingly mixed up populations of
our time. Thereafter, we attempt to colour in relatively broad (but still hopefully
precise!) explanation of what epistemology is, thus revealing what sort of ‘why’
and ‘how’ questions are normally asked in and through epistemological scrutiny.
Having these basic insights registered, it is now useful to turn our attention to
some methodological matters which come hand in glove with epistemological
reflection. This treatment of the means by and through which epistemological

inquiry is – or can be – conducted is carried out by means of (firstly) on account
of transdisciplinary inquiry at work, following by (secondly) on explication of
what postdisciplinary inquiry entails. These disciplinary approaches have been
selected because – as uncovered in the previous chapter on ontology – much of the
qualitative research that is conducted across Asia in Tourism Studies is still qui-
etly regulated or under- suspecting governed by Western/Eurocentric/North
Atlantic notions of research propriety. While it would have been helpful to have
provided detailed within-field disciplinary (i.e. within-the-single-discipline)
approaches, and then also of alternative interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and
cross-disciplinary approaches to qualitative research, the space required for that
to be done meaningfully is not available because of the world limits fixed for this
chapter. Ergo, we have decided to concentrate upon transdisciplinary and postdis-
ciplinary lines of scrutiny alone because (in our eyes) these two approaches equip
researchers in the richest and most direct ways to uncover or recover those ways
of experiencing and valuing the knowledge worlds that have been frustrated or
denied under the Eurocentric yoke. Thus, we hold the view that for Asian research-
ers who wish to probe the lost mandates of knowing (again, after Snyder 1974; see
also Fine et al. 2008 on defined and commodified local knowledges, and see
Battiste (2008) on various imperialisms which have existed [many of which still
exist] over indigenous/local-communal knowledges), the most sensitive and pro-
ductive approaches come with lines of investigation which are either transdisci-
plinary or postdisciplinary in orientation and spirit.
In these regards, the sorts of transdisciplinary and postdisciplinary approaches
that will be covered in the rest of this chapter both comprise forms of open critical
inquiry which acknowledge that knowledge cultivation is enmeshed within a gamut
of social/cultural/political/psychic contexts. Hence transdisciplinary and postdisci-
plinary approaches to epistemology are not avenues to knowing which appeal to
those searching for widely generalisable facts or to forms of logic which are exer-
cised independently either from the historical and contemporary pressures which
the studied community/group/society is embedded within or indeed (otherwise)
from the historical and contemporary pressures which the research inquiry itself has
to situationally reflect. Thus, an open critical inquiry – whether it be conducted
through transdisciplinary or postdisciplinary means – is one that is rather sensitive
to the complexities of the globalising/glocalising world order and where it is conse-
quently not possible to include every active entity or interactive phenomenon within
the study parameters. Hence the rest of this chapter pays homage to the work of
Australian ‘critical environmentalist’, Jacqueline Russell, who maintains that forms
of open critical inquiry must necessarily be:
• Partial – since we can never know everything there is about the world or its local
influences
• Plural – since our generated knowledges (borne from our research efforts) must
potentially be encoded for/received by/decoded by a plurality of different know-
ing ‘audiences’
• Provisional – since (with respect to these dictates of partiality and plurality) all
generated knowledge is fallible, and this must always remain ‘open to [the
necessity of possible interpretive] revision and improvement’ (see Russell

(2010:37–40))
And such forms of open critical inquiry start from the important recognition that
not only is Asia not a single/uniform place but it comprises an immense quilt of dif-
ferent peoples and varying inheritances. Thus there is prodigious diversity not just
between the nations of Asia but within them. Famously, for instance, China is not
merely a realm of the Han but has its well-noted fifty-plus ethnicities maintaining
their distinct culturedoms (Donald and Benewick 2005). Indeed, many epistemo-
logical scrutinies over the long decades of the twenty-first century will conceivably
be carried out not just over Asians-as-coherent-national-populations which are
recovering from being misrepresented under the Eurocentric yoke of colonialism
but also over Asians-as-hybrid-populations as various ethnic groups or subcultural
populations jostle for legitimacy within countries to not just recover their lost or
misrepresented traditions but transitionalise their knowledges and their spiritualities
within nations and across supposed national boundaries.
In these respects, the need for fluid acumen in working out what used to matter
for traditional population ABC and what now matters for transitionalising popula-
tion MNO is in evidence. For those readers of this chapter who are troubled by these
related and important terms fluid acumen/plural knowability/critical multilogicality,
the following glossaries may help clarify some of this emanative cultural studies
vocabulary:
• Hollinshead et al. (2015) contains a reflexive glossary which covers such surfac-
ing concepts as complicitous seeing/discursive knowledge/epistemic
understanding/games of truth/institutional truths/the governance of things/plural
knowability/unitary reason. It is Foucauldian (after the French philosopher of
acts of normalisation) in impetus but might indeed be replaced (should actually
be replaced) by a more pertinent ‘Eastern’ glossary based loosely on (perhaps)
Buddhist, Confucian, Daoist, and Shinto worldviews in the second edition of
Mura and Khoo-Lattimore.
• Hollinshead and Suleman (2017) contains a glossary of some 29 concepts on
new-sense epistemology such as cultural warrants/doxa/emics and
etics/fantasmatics/fractured identities – fractured locations/halfway
populations/honest-to-self representations/interstitial spaces/monologic
accounts/new-sense/nonsense/regimes of representation/third space cultures. It
takes much of its impetus from Denzin, Lincoln, and Smith’s (2008) landmark
work The Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Readers trou-
bled by notions of multiple consciousness in the identification and representation
of peoples may want to inspect Ladson-Billings and Donnor (2005: 64–67) on
the construction of ethical epistemologies. It seeks to critique the differences and

the hybridities situated amongst Asia Pacific Islands, as based on Lowe’s (1996)
original work on Asian-American identity.
3.3.1 irst Focus: Knowledge-Making ‘with’ Diasporic

F
Populations Today – The Cultivation
of Transdisciplinary Lines of Inquiry
In this first of the two areas of ‘focus’, an attempt will be made to critique means of
probing the conceptual dragon’s den of diasporic identifications today, at a time
when very large Asian diaspora (plural) are spreading across the world – be they
‘Chinese’, ‘Indian’, ‘Japanese’, ‘Vietnamese’, whatever. In this light, advocacy will
be accorded to the serviceability of transdisciplinary lines of epistemological
work in faithfully interpreting the diasporic ties and the diasporic aspirations/
counter-aspirations of our era. In the box that follows – culled from the work of
Ivanova and Hollinshead (2015) – the use of transdisciplinary trajectories will be
raised to delve into the sorts of associations and affiliation and the kinds of resis-
tances and reactivities which come cheek by jowl with diasporic aspirations, where
they might constitute awkward or unruly – or ‘wicked’– issues to resolve. Such is
the stuff of transdisciplinary inquiry, that is, of lines of approach which tend to be
called upon to examine wicked problems, where such wicked/knotty/formidable
‘difficulties’ comprise:
any complex issue which defies complete definition and for which there can be no final
solution; such problems are not morally wicked, but [are] diabolised in that they resist the
usual [disciplinary/interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary] attempts to resolve them. (Brown
et al. 2010:302)
In this light, then, we may adopt the related definition of Brown et al. (2010:302;
original emphasis retained) that transdisciplinarity itself comprises the effort to:
[go] beyond the academic disciplines to include all forms of structures knowledge relevant
to an issue [a wicked issue] or theme, or including all the academic disciplines relevant to
a topic or theme [and where these efforts] go beyond the processes of multidisciplinarity
and interdisciplinarity resulting in new insights, knowledge and decision-making.
The following box (Box 3.1) thereby offers comment from Ivanova and
Hollinshead (2015) on how transdisciplinary avenues of investigation may prove
profitable in researching difficult social/cultural/political/psychic problematics in
ways which indeed seek to pry beyond ‘mere’ multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
approaches. [The material within Box 3.1 has been slightly reduced from the origi-
nal statements provided by Ivanova and Hollinshead.]
Box 3.1: The Role of Transdisciplinary Approaches in Inspecting

Problematics in/Around Diaspora
In Hollinshead (2015), it was recognised – notably through an examination of
the work of Gilroy (1997, 2001) on the often capricious and regularly polyse-
mous nature of identity in that paper – that diaspora is not such neat and dis-
crete phenomenon as is generally assumed. We have learnt from Gilroy that
diasporic positions are best seen not so much as, for instance, highly specific
situations of territorial dislocation where singular invocations of ethnic iden-
tity and/or cultural nationalism are clearly discernible but rather (perhaps) as
difficult-to-read states of in-betweenness where many sorts of cultural muta-
tion and restless discontinuity/continuity transpire. It is now opportune to
inspect the worth of transdisciplinary approaches in gauging these rich and
deep problematics.
Transdisciplinary approaches are being considered as useful and produc-
tive means of examining diasporic matters because they tend to be more fruit-
ful than other ‘disciplinary spectrum’ approaches in handling complex social,
cultural, and multi-perspectival matters. While no comprehensive account of
the history and meaning of transdisciplinary has ever been produced and
while no absolute or universally accepted definition of term has ever been
generated, a number of broad principles have been generally accepted to dis-
tinguish transdisciplinary lines of analysis, which render it utilitarian for the
ambivalences and the ambiguities of investigation into diaspora. A number of
these principles initially (drawn from a literature review carried out by
Lawrence (2010)) will now be briefly distilled vis-à-vis the protean character-
istics of diasporic self-making, as given in an exhibit (i.e. in Table 3.1) of
Hollinshead (2015).
Firstly, transdisciplinary approaches tend to resist (relatively speaking) the
fragmentation of knowledge (Somerville and Rapport 2003) and are relatively
responsive when the identifications, significations, or aspirations involved are
drawn from heterogeneous rather than homogenous entities. This is advanta-
geous, for instance, when diasporic outlooks on self and society are inclined
to be difficult to read and imaginative in their conceptualisation, where it is
not easy to know up front in the particular study which sorts of knowledge
regimes and disciplinary domains will be directly suited to the involved cri-
tique as was stated in Hollinshead (2015).
Secondly, transdisciplinary approaches tend to be relatively flexible and
therefore useful when a particular arena of knowledge construction is hybrid
in form with strong non-linear and reflexive characteristics which often render
it poor in the fit with singular within-discipline traditional lines of critique
(Balsinger 2000). This is advantageous, for instance, when diasporic outlooks
on self and society are inclined to be anti-national (i.e. against the normal
grain) and gelling (i.e. adhesive in fresh or previously unencountered ways)
– again, as signified in Hollinshead (2015).
(continued)
Box 3.1 (continued)

Thirdly, transdisciplinary approaches tend to be relatively pliant where as-
yet-uncertain ‘local’ contextual orientations have to be uncovered and where
setting-specific or milieu-specific cultural warrants have to be fathomed
(Thompson Klien 2004). This is advantageous, for instance, when diasporic
outlooks on self and society are inclined to lack fixity and otherwise to be
negotiated or emergent in ways that have not been distinctly predictable
before along known trajectories – as per Hollinshead (2015).
Fourthly, transdisciplinary approaches tend to be relatively accommodat-
ing when the target understandings are intersubjective and result from some
form of practical or survivalist forms of reasoning which a group, community,
mix, or organisation had been forced or driven into (Nicolescu 2008). This is
advantageous, for instance, when diasporic outlooks on self and society are
inclined to be corrective towards established ways of behaving or even trans-
gressive towards previously normalised thought-lines/naturalised action
lines – as posited within Hollinshead (2015).
Fifthly, transdisciplinary approaches tend to be relatively tractable when
the phenomenon in question requires a close and prolonged period of inspec-
tion from a range of different vantage points, notably where those subsequent
angles or areas of sustained inspection may not be relatively knowable up
front (Horlick-Jones and Sime 2004). This is advantageous, for instance,
when diasporic outlooks on self and society are inclined to be transcultural
(i.e. osmotic towards a number of different cultural inheritances on ‘loca-
tions’) and promissory other than culturally stable and/or cosmologically
steadfast – as Hollinshead (2015) suggested.
In order to understand what can conceivably be gained from adopting
transdisciplinary lines of inquiry, it is helpful to roundly consider how trans-
disciplinary modes of investigation differ from interdisciplinary and multidis-
ciplinary ones. In some senses, there are no significant differences between
the three modes, and some observers deem them to be ‘complementary’ rather
than ‘mutually exclusive’ lines of inspection (Lawrence 2010: 21). But to
some other commentators – and in certain important regards – transdisci-
plinary lines of critique are rather distinct from interdisciplinary and multidis-
ciplinary ones. To Somerville and Rapport (2003), the term ‘interdisciplinarity’
ought to be reserved for those forms of research where a number of scientific
disciplines are brought together, while the term ‘transdisciplinarity’ ought to
be reserved for those processes where scientific lines of scrutiny are conjoined
with professional and/or non-academic understandings.
While (The Cambridge Dictionary 2017) suggest that ‘multidisciplinary’
research is that form of inquiry where a number of disciplines come together to
(continued)
Box 3.1 (continued)

look at an issue, but do so from self-contained outlooks, ‘interdisciplinary’
research is that where a number of disciplines are integrated in some unifying
fashion to look at ‘it’. In contrast, for ‘transdisciplinary’ research to be bona
fide (to Bruce), when those disciplines (and those professional/non-academic
bodies) are brought together, the line of inspection is decidedly not arranged
around a set of given disciplinary trajectories or a priori subjects but is
schemed up contextually around a number of emergent or salient domains of
interest which arise within the contexts being explored, and where there is a
strong effort to cross (i.e. to ‘trans’) the borders of established avenues of
inquiry ‘there and then’. Where these emergent angles of inspection and the
involved domains of inquiry are particularly flexible and where multiple con-
structions of knowledge are countenanced within and between multiple
worldviews, open forms of transdisciplinarity (viz. open transdisciplinarity)
are deemed to have emerged (Lawrence 2010:19).
It is important to realise that, as a principle, multidisciplinary lines of
inspection are generally felt to remain ‘still disciplinary but loosely collective’
in style, and interdisciplinary ones are generally felt to be ‘mixed’ ones, while
transdisciplinary ones are seen to be ‘fused’ endeavours. Thus to Ramadier
(2004), while both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary inspections tend to
project different types of unified but still preformulated knowledges, transdis-
ciplinary inspections tend to generate (when successful!) conjoint or coherent
forms of knowledge which stretch beyond the unity of held worldviews to
some form of ‘transcendence’ beyond them. For the sincere transdisciplinar-
ian researcher, therefore, the sovereignty of start-up disciplines is not a sancti-
fied matter, and he/she is often fired up by the opportunity of working not only
‘with’ but ‘deep inside’ other professional, lay, and non-academic diagnoses to
be able to generate fresh form of collective awareness and collaborative insight
about the wicked issue at hand. Thus, while the multidisciplinarian might be a
specialist researcher who has joined others but effectively remains within his/
her own discipline, and while the interdisciplinarian is a team researcher who
brings his/her trusted conceptualisations to bear on the mutually agreed ‘sub-
ject’, the transdisciplinary researcher is one who is more committed to the
dynamic cross-fertilisation of a diversity of contributory approaches as
enlarged visions of that original subject are sought and as newly synergised
and enriched vantage points are developed. In all of these efforts, the genuine
transdisciplinary researcher may be said to be one that is conscious of the per-
fidities of disciplinary expertise, is welcoming towards ‘tacit’ or ‘lived world’
forms of knowledge, and is fast-ready to engage in the coalescive deconstruc-
tion of assumed (i.e. pre-assumed) understandings.
Thus transdisciplinarity is that effort to generate understanding which criss-
crosses disciplines; which goes between, beyond, and outside of disciplines,
(continued)
Box 3.1 (continued)

thereby traversing the possibilities of understanding from many or all disci-
plines (Hollinshead and Ivanova 2013:55); and which ‘points toward our
potential to think in terms of frameworks, concepts, techniques, and vocabu-
lary that we have not yet imagined’ (Buckler, 2004:2). The relevance of trans-
disciplinary lines of interpretation are tall in Asia, therefore – notably where
Eastern/Confucian ways of seeing have been denied under the Western bridle
and under English-speaking orders. Such transdisciplinary studies of matters
of epistemology in Asia will be complex and nuanced and will probably have
to focus upon Asian obligations within society rather than on rights, as in the
Eurocentric world. And they will inevitably be predicated upon Asian notions
of ‘rule by Man [sic, read People] rather than [rule by]the law’ (Little and
Reed 1989).
Table 3.1 The emergent and ambivalent locations of culture: Bhabha’s ideas on cultural hybridity
and ambiguity as catalyst approaches for postdisciplinary inquiry
Cultural hybridity is composed of those transnational and transitional encounters and negotiations
over differential meaning and value (particularly in ‘colonial’/‘neocolonial contexts) where new
ambivalent and indeterminate locations of culture are generated but where that new celebration
of identity consists largely of problematic forms of signification which resist discursive closure.
In such contexts, the epistemological commitment could/would/should be open rather than
closed – after Russell (2006) – and thus postdisciplinary approaches may prove particularly
useful in:
■ 1 = That liminal space or interstitial passage between fixed identifications
which entertains ‘difference’ without an assumed or imposed hierarchy – an
expanded or ex-centric site of experience and empowerment (▴4)
■ 2 = Those productive third space articulations of cultural difference which
reinscribe in-between spaces in international culture through cutting edge
enunciations of translation and negotiation to thereby permit the people of
those third spaces and elude the politics of polarity to emerge (i.e. to begin to
re-envisage themselves) as the others of their selves (▴38)
■ 3 = That inherently unauthentic or impure site where new anti-essentialist signs
of symbolic postcolonial consciousness are iteratively generated in opposition
to the hierarchy and the ascendancy of powerful cultures (▴58)
4 = Those sites of emergent cultural knowledge which resist unitary and
ethnocentric notions of diversity and which reveal culture to be uncertain,
ambivalent and transparent, and open to the future (▴127)
■ 5 = Those transnational and transitional encounters and negotiations over
differential meaning and value in `colonial’ contexts where new ambivalent and
indeterminate locations of culture are generated but where that new celebration
of identity consists largely of problematic forms of signification which resist
discursive closure (▴173)
■ 6 = That space in-between received rules of a priori cultural engagement where
contesting and antagonistic forms of representation of culture stand on truths
that are only ever partial, limited, and unstable (▴193)
(continued)
Table 3.1 (continued)

■ 7 = Those marginal places where cultural differences contingently and
conflictually touch to yield borderline experiences resistant to the binary
oppositions of racial and cultural groups and to homogenised and polarised
political consciousness (▴207–9)
■ 8 = That fantastic location of cultural difference where new expressive cultural
identities continually open out performatively to realign the boundaries of class,
of gender, and of contingent upon the stubborn chunks of the incommensurable
elements of past, totalized identity (▴219)
■ 9 = Those locations of social utterance which undergo historically
transformative moments through the enunciation of ‘inappropriate’ symbolism
to permit in-between peoples to contest these modernist understandings of
being and identity which have hitherto tended to deprive them of their own
subjectivities (▴242)
■ 10 = That discourse of space which iteratively interrogates (i.e. resists) the
Western sense of synchronous tradition and which repels modernist and
teleological consciousnesses of and about class, race, and sexuality (▴251)
Legend: ■ Bhabha’s general account of the term ‘cultural hybridity’ – ten selected explanations of
scenarios which are suited to open-to-the-future postdisciplinary thought-lines [Numbers in round
brackets refer to pages in Bhabha (1994), e.g. (▴4)]
Source: Assembled from Hollinshead (1998: 126–128 (Table 1) and 132 (Table 2))
A version of this exhibit was used in Hollinshead (2016: 356), applied to diasporic scenarios
3.3.2 econd Focus: Knowledge-Making ‘with’ Emergent

S
Populations Today – The Cultivation of Postdisciplinary
Lines of Inquiry
In this second area of focus, we will endeavour to reveal what postdisciplinarity

constitutes today, declaring that it is a style of wide cultural (or perhaps ‘intercul-
tural’) and cosmological (or perhaps ‘inter-cosmological’) knowing which demands
that investigators identify – and think conceptually and practically within – the pan-
oramic ways of knowing which are decidedly influential within and over the sce-
narios they inquire into, notably when these milieux are seen to be, or assumed to
be, pluridimensional (i.e. richly admixed culturally or richly admixed cosmologi-
cally). Such is the necessity for the crucial ‘plural knowability’ of postdisciplinarity
(again, after Hollinshead and Ivanova (2013)). Principally, postdisciplinarity is
thereby a genre of critical awareness that axiomatically asks those investigators to
deploy painstaking time and effort to contour the historical cline of these plural and
acutely different visions of the world as they contend with one other in monitored/
poorly unmonitored/never-been-monitored ways. It is a means of knowledge gain
which is formulated to decipher the substantive contrarieties that are seen to exist
(or that are presumed to exist) not only between different cultures but within singu-
lar cultures (see Kahn 1995). It is a means of knowledge gain which is formulated
to decipher the substantive equivocations that are seen to exist (or that are presumed
to exist) not only between different poetics but within singular imposed aesthetic
regimes (Liu 2011). Hence, in the broadest sense, postdisciplinarity comprises the
perspicacious endeavour to dialectically address in deep and rich ways the fantas-
matics (i.e. the hailed ‘mythical structures’, the hailed ‘doxa’, and the hailed ‘cul-
tural warrants’) which are prominent and effervescent within studied populations,
and that is normally within populations that have been disenfranchised or subju-
gated in significant regards.
It is perhaps now apposite to offer a definition of what we mean by postdiscipli-
narity. The explication we will work with (below) is culled from Hollinshead’s
(2012:64) abecedarium on ‘postdisciplinarity’ as provided in the Critical Tourism
Studies Network’s tome, which emanated from The 3rd Critical Tourism Studies
International Conference as staged in Croatia (Zadar) in 2009. Catalysed by Repko’s
(2008) serviceable attempt to explain what ‘interdisciplinarity’ is (and what a small
range of other ‘disciplinarities’ are), Hollinshead suggested in Zadar – in contrast –
that postdisciplinary studies constitute:
forms of systematic or exhaustive longitudinal (through time) and latitudinal (through
place) critique which utilise scholarly and non-scholarly reasoning to map the multiple
truths which exist in a found context or setting, and which pay distinct attention to emic/
local/grounded understandings which have significant communal, public, and/or political
support there, whether that be based upon felt or claimed longstanding inheritances or oth-
erwise upon emergent and dynamic projections of being and becoming. Such forms of cri-
tique tend to serve as dialectical open-to-the-future inspections which uncover or account
for the plurality of important (i.e., well-supported) outlooks which have been overlooked,
ignored, or suppressed either historically (or which are being subjugated in the present) by
dominant authorities/dominant cognitions.
This chapter now proceeds based on the deployment of that Zadar-borne defini-
tion from 2009, and readers who have already read the immediately previous chap-
ter on ontology (which stressed how research into tourism in/across Asia was
saddled under something of an overbearing Eurocentric/Western mindset) might see
how the above definition of postdisciplinarity – where it emphasises matters of mul-
tiple truths/longstanding inheritances/emergent projections of being/overlooked-
ignored accounts/historical subjugations – is indeed highly relevant for this
succeeding chapter on epistemology in Asia. That clarified, readers who may want
to explore less particular accounts of and about postdisciplinarity – and who might
also want to explore the conceivable juxtaposition of postdisciplinarity with extra-
disciplinary or supradisciplinary approaches and their respective situation in
Tourism Studies – are advised to inspect the very useful synthesis on postdiscipli-
narity which Coles et al. (2006) have recently provided in Current Issues in
Tourism. [see Balsiger (2004) on supradisciplinary approaches.]
In demanding a wider conceptual openness in the generation of postdisciplinary
understandings – as platformed on Hollinshead’s (2009) rudimentary definition of
postdisciplinarity from Zadar, above – the box that follows (i.e. Box 3.2) will reveal
why this sort of broader imaginary is actually a primary need for the domain of
Tourism Studies, i.e. a demesne which claims to embrace the representation and
projection of ‘difference’ not only across continents at the macro level but also
within countries/regions/localities at micro levels of identification (Lanfant 1995).
Box 3.2 The Role of Postdisciplinary Approaches in Inspecting New

Enunciations of Culture
This second exemplar on the epistemological approaches (and in this instance
on postdisciplinary means of knowledge-making) draws upon on the Indian
literary theorist Homi Bhabha’s (1994) indicative work on the many restless
populations of our time. We learn from Bhabha that a large proportion of the
world’s population is nowadays caught up in difficult old-culture-denying
new-culture-enforcing situations which hover in awkward third-place spaces.
In such psychically oppressive scenarios, they exist restlessly and transiently
neither decently allied with their old first-place location (i.e. fully understood
by the population that has otherwise continued to live ‘there’) nor decently
appreciated in their new second-place location (i.e. fully welcomed by the
dominant groups who have been longstanding ‘there’ in that new locale to
which they have moved or been moved). In these emergent and ambivalent
metaphoric ‘third spaces’, all sorts of new cultural hybridities ‘evolve’, and
ambiguous new alter egos ‘unfold’ as psychic identifications transmogrify in
sometimes reactive and sometimes proactive ‘bagatelle-like’ scenarios.
This exemplar draws on two tables which attempt to translate to Tourism
Studies the thinking of Bhabha (1994) on the agonistics of cultural situated-
ness today. The first of these tables (Table 3.1) is an attempt – taken from
Hollinshead (1998) – to illuminate Bhabha’s ideas on the indeterminate nature
of such new-sense cultural identifications in India, across Asia, or afield any-
where. Again, such hybrid identities tend to be highly tormenting and resist
close (closed) delineation. Epistemologically, those social scientists who can-
not function well in terms of plural knowability will frequently find such
often partial and regularly resistant ‘cross-narrative’ or ‘border-zone’ projec-
tions of selfhood to be rather troublesome to corral. Yet they must be mas-
tered, for many of the world’s populations in Asia or beyond who want to
freshly/newly/correctly enunciate themselves – i.e. to vigorously and distinc-
tively announce themselves through the declarative power of tourism – indeed
inhabit difficult halfway/half-space locales. The epistemological effort to
know these fluid populations must commonly therefore be precisionistic and
exacting.
The second table (Table 3.2) generated from Bhabha’s thinking on awk-
ward interstitial ‘third space’ cultural positions comprises an attempt to draw
out a number of contemporary research positions which could conceivably
benefit from an engagement with postdisciplinary lines of inquiry. The issues
embraced in the table cover the following ten key problematic issues which
regularly crop up in the representational/performative activity of cultural
selection and cultural production in Tourism Studies/Tourism Management/
Related Fields today, each of which is headed by an involved ticklish or exact-
ing concept of prominence:
(continued)
Box 3.2 (continued)

• Emergent peoples and the multiple identities of populations
• Ethnic group maintenance and new vocabularies of identification
• Chronotype culture and the everyday production/reproduction of people
and places
• Acts of becoming and the paradoxes of plural cultural identification
• New-sense understandings and the emergent/partial identities of
populations
• The agonistics of en groupe belonging and the gains and losses of syncre-
tism in identity formation and aspiration development
• Counter-representation and the cultural politics of resistance
• The fantasmatics of populations and the new performative power of
enunciation
• The dissemination of storylines and the new manumissive locations of cul-
tural selection and cultural production
• Discontinuous historical storylines and the new political geography of
space and place where spatial referents outdo historical ones, nowadays
These ten fraught, highly interpretive, dialogic matters of being and
becoming have been distilled within Table 3.2 in terms of Bhabhian aware-
ness about the interstitial/ambivalent/restless ‘third space’ identities of emer-
gent populations. The table draws attention to those uncertain areas of identity
production and knowledge-making for certain emergent peoples today under
the vicissitudes of the postcolonial moment and its numerous closed/national-
istic and open/osmotic other influences. The table draws attention to the sorts
of epistemological conundrums which are commonplace in delicate, enig-
matic, fractious spaces and places – again, in India, across Asia, or afield.
There is so much potential here for future scholars (and informed practitio-
ners) in Tourism Studies to inspect how the existing structures and style forms
of tourism have rubbed up against traditional cultural forms but hopefully
(nowadays) how emollient forms of tourism can conceivably help either
recover particular lost mandates of knowing or otherwise lubricate transi-
tional or vernal expressions of being and becoming. It is not so much a case
of watch this space in the epistemology of Tourism Studies but of watch the
throbbing diversity of manifold third spaces which are enabled and empow-
ered in part through tourism and travel. And that may not be a rare phenome-
non, for Bhabha maintains that in this mixed up contemporary world, so very
many of us across the pulsating globe are caught up in difficult psychic spaces
and places in our not-yet-stable ‘halfway’ locations! Take London, for
instance – otherwise recently termed as Londonistan: is that not very much an
Asian city, these days, itself … or in one of its selves?
Table 3.2 Problematic postcolonial issues of identity, after Bhabha: target epistemological
matters of knowing which can commonly benefit from postdisciplinary approaches
1. The emergent and multiple identities of populations
Key problematic knowledge area = emergent peoples
... i.e. knowledge about populations who have learned the capacity (or taken the right) to define
and project themselves in new ways which harness both longstanding (but suppressed) identities
and novel forms of refreshing ‘difference’ that have not been in currency before
2. The reliance upon new vocabularies of identification
Key problematic knowledge area = ethnic group maintenance
... i.e. knowledge about the symbolic universe of subjectively real and societally functional
meanings which orders the past, present, and future for a particular (ethnic) population and
legitimates the correctness of held identities and held cultural warrants for that group
3. The everyday production of people and places
Key problematic knowledge area = chronotype culture
...i.e. about those limited and historical fixed visions of nationhood/peoplehood
which imprison people within old or narrow discourses of being and which
selectively privilege only a few outlooks of unity; chronotype projections tend to be
stoutly binary and restrictively hierarchical
4. The paradoxes of plural cultural identification
Key problematic knowledge area = acts of becoming
... i.e. about the deeds and projections which a new or liberated population engages in as it is
able to develop for itself a new situational consciousness; acts of becoming are often evanescent
but important performative declarations of selfhood which keep that population alive, confident,
and dynamic
5. The emergent and partial identities of populations
Key problematic knowledge area = new sense
...i.e. about new knowledges being created; while ‘nonsense’ (in Bhabhian thought) is the
continued dissemination of sterile, monologic, and largely colonialist/mainstream discourse
about identity and nationhood, new sense is that corrective talk which admits ongoing
negotiation about personhood and which enables halfway populations to faithfully and
creatively negotiate new, restless, but empowering identities for themselves
6. The gains and losses of syncretism
Key problematic knowledge area = agonistics
... i.e. about the particularly combative polemics a population is embroiled in as it wrestles in
anguish over important but problematic issues of being; for Bhabha, agonistics are the acute
psychic problems a population suffers as it seeks to struggle free of constrainting chronotype
representations of its selfhood and carry certain aspects of its traditions (but which?) into its
new-sense (but which direction?) future
7. The cultural politics of resistance
Key problematic knowledge area = counter-representations
... i.e. about those revised or alternative projections of and about things which seek to overthrow
the prevailing practices of ideological subjugation by which a dominant group has subdued a
removed/peripheral/marginal population; counter-representations tend to work actively and
performatively to correctively reproject what is critically important to subjugated/outsider
populations
(continued)
Table 3.2 (continued)

8. The new performative power of enunciation
Key problematic knowledge area = fantasmatics
... i.e. about the self-generating discursive projections a population has about a place or subject
which is important to it (but which is not projected in other/mainstream accounts as that
population would like it to be); indeed fantasmatic constructions which tend to bear little
relationship to the fashions by which that phenomenon is usually understood. Once articulated,
fantasmatic visions can be unifying and empowering for disenfranchised/squashed/
misunderstood populations
9. The new manumissive locations of culture
Key problematic knowledge area = disseminated storylines
... i.e. about those narratives of peoplehood/culturedom which are orthodox and which privilege
received notions of belongingness and close or restricted notions of nationality; for Bhabha, the
postcolonial moment affords all sorts of new (but difficult) possibilities for emergent populations
to disseminate alternative storylines which resist such totalised/homogenous projections of
being
10. The new political geography of space
Key problematic knowledge area = discontinuous historical realities
... i.e. about the new spaces of being and becoming that appear, flicker, and inscribe themselves
across the globe where particular populations seek disjuncture with old/chronotype
representations of community/nation; often, the strength and of hold orthodox understandings
mean that these new realities can (at the current point in time) be offered in an ambivalent or
schizophrenic fashion
Source: The above problematic matters of knowing are distilled from Bhabha (1994)
The view will be addressed that since Tourism Studies is loaded up with all sorts of
intrinsic but complex internationalisms and all sorts of national and non-national
impanelments, its investigators must be perpetually alert to the hegemonies of
inscription and projection that routinely flow through the fashions via which they
‘recognise’ and ‘name’ other populations and other inheritances/other birthrights/
other patrimonies. In our late-capitalist years of floating territories, fragile
individuals, and porous realities (after Bauman 2000), those who work in Tourism
Studies must fast appreciate how to see beyond the basic classification of found
cultures/found cosmologies/found spiritualities: cultures, cosmologies, and spiritu-
alities must not merely be discovered; they must i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-t-l-y be entered
(Lidchi 1997).
The material within Box 3.2 thus suggests that to decently ‘enter’ encountered
cultures, researchers have to be careful which sorts of – and what range of – knowl-
edges they select to work with, in their unavoidable and often hazy epistemological
games of ‘double hermeneutics’. Individual thinkers and practitioners have to
appreciate how to not merely depend upon overly academic, bloodless, and cold
classifications of cultural membership and communality that have tended to charac-
terise the etic profile of social science this past century or more but to learn how to
admix such ‘technical and arm-length styles of knowing’ with pointedly localised
and heavily contextualised ‘non-academic’/‘organic’/‘sectarian’ forms of being
(Hollinshead 2010). Thereby, at an inspected site or event, the postdisciplinary
inquirer may need to position himself/herself as a rather more multivalent individ-

ual or team member who is primed to generate dialogue, or to cultivate internarra-
tive. Such forms of painstaking intercultural communication (or translation) might
be required between, for example, received forms of academic-space ‘critical
inquiry’ and perhaps a territorial population’s ‘indigenous aspiration’, there, where
the latter – possibly a so-called primal people – owns, is host to, or is otherwise
implicated in the examined activity or in the developing ‘business of tourism’.
Here, then, arises the deep problematic of the etic/emic distinction in social sci-
ence (Tedlock 2005). And, for those who are not yet conversant with the messy
imbroglio which lies between the often purblind vision of the-just-arrived-outside
viewer (i.e. the etic observer) and the often difficult-to-capture versions of life
owned by inside members of so-called distant or removed societies (i.e. the emic
observer), see Given (2008) for short but handy clarification of these unruly matters
of etic versus emic knowing. For a more fulsome treatment of these profound epis-
temological (and ontological) problematic about outsider versus insider knowledge
positions, refer to various methodological standpoints on the insider/outsider debate
in Headland et al. (1990).
3.4 ndnote: Knowing Old Asian Knowledges – Recognising

E
New Asian Knowledges
From this companion chapter to the immediate previous chapter on ontology, an

attempt has been made to explain what epistemology is (in general) and means (for
those who work as practitioners in tourism or as researchers in Tourism Studies). In
defining epistemology as that realm of metaphysics which examines the nature
and condition of knowledge, ipso facto, within particular populations or interest
groups, it has sought to clarify that a metaphysician of epistemology (or an informed
tourism operator/informed Tourism Studies scholar) is principally charged with the
task of determining how a given society or institution goes about knowing things
within its bailiwick and thereby determines what is deemed (there) to be ‘true’ from
what is ‘false’ and what is held to be ‘good’ from ‘bad’.
In noting the degree to which tourism is a vital channel and a vibrant mecha-
nism – along with the arts, the film industry, television, the media, etc. – for doling
out representations of the world’s peoples, places, pasts, and presents, the chapter
has attempted to show that tourism is an immensely significant knowledge-making
vehicle in and of our times (and, indeed, of all times where travel is/has been rela-
tively unhampered). Thus, to recap from the introduction to this chapter, tourism has
been shown (here) to be not just an immense industry promoting mobility and lei-
sure but the most powerful inscriptive and projective edifice which produces mean-
ing (and thereby ‘knowledge in currency’) through its constant and cumulative use
of language, discourse, and image – a point which Buck (1993:179–182) has richly
illustrated in Hawaii. Fundamentally, its everyday use of textual descriptions of
peoples, its discursive collaborative naming of places, and its visual codification of
what is ‘there’ (anywhere) to be seen and experienced give its ‘systems of represen-
tation’ huge knowledge-making authority and truth-making agency. And, in stress-
ing the epistemological importance of how knowledge and truth are procured here,
there, and everywhere, tourism has been shown to be a supreme knowledge pur-
veyor of and about the inheritances of populations, a supreme knowledge purveyor
of insight into other (i.e. ‘othered’) populations, and a supreme knowledge purveyor
in framing all sorts of truthy fantasies about the world’s different drawcards and
dreamsites.
But tourism has so many of the world’s traditions to communicate about, so
many of the world’s old spiritualities to inscribe, and so many of the world’s emer-
gent narratives to project. Hence this chapter has stressed that those who work in
senior posts in the industry, and those who hold down advanced research positions
in scholarship in Tourism Studies, must nowadays (and henceforward) be tutored in
the need to reflexively develop fluid acumen in reading about different host popula-
tions, in interpreting different other peoples, and in collaborating with the industry’s
ubiquitous myriad of contesting players where tourism is essentially the most politi-
cal of arenas (Hollinshead and Caton: In Press; Hollinshead and Suleman: In Press).
It is not enough, in the twenty-first century, for those who work in tourism/Tourism
Studies to just talk blandly about and platitudinously about tourism being an inter-
disciplinary subject (see Tribe 1997): it is vital that those who inscribe and project
in tourism and those who inscribe and project through Tourism Studies research do
sincerely walk the talk in their held and developed plural knowabilities. Since
tourism is the most contested and political of human phenomena (Hall 1992) – with
its panoramic width of cultural, social, economic, environmental, and psychic rami-
fications in each and every place (Jamal and Robinson 2009) – it is epistemologi-
cally crucial that its industry high chiefs and its scholarship high priests have tall
competencies in their capacity to receive and decently interpret held knowledges
about not only longstanding ontologies of being but unfolding ontologies of
aspiration.
Old-sense disciplinary certitudes which pontificate that tourism is a distinct
industry where one must be an experienced tourism specialist to work in it –
and half-sense interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary surenesses which are tantamount
to more or less the same overconfidences and the same under-substantiations
(Hollinshead 2016) – are no longer enough. If tourism management praxis/Tourism
Studies scholarship is a rich, deep, and powerful procurator (as it selects and pro-
duces knowledge through its now increasingly recognised tourist gaze (or rather, its
‘tourism gazes’, plural)), then – as this chapter has argued – it is incumbent upon
those who operate in lead posts in the industry and in catalytic positions in scholar-
ship to pay respect to bona fide transdisciplinary and postdisciplinary approaches
to ‘knowing’ on account of the more critical and open stances of these two forms of
time-demanding inquiry towards what is held to be true within different populations
and amongst specific subpopulations. While the former (transdisciplinary insight)
can – relatively speaking – help the field’s movers and shakers operate with more
humility as they necessarily learn how to marry academic or esoteric forms of

knowing with local/contextual non-academic ones, the latter (postdisciplinary dis-
cernment) can, relatively speaking, help cultivate a healthy and critical sense of
openness to both the old lingering lineages of stable populations and the new arriv-
iste articulations of dynamic just-formed/now-reforming peoples. Accordingly, this
chapter has stressed the relatively fresh vitalities of transdisciplinarity and of post-
disciplinarity in the double hermeneutics of knowing – that is, in not only know-
ing what an established culture-hood or emergent interest group knows but in also
knowing how reliable (or otherwise how refractory) that gained research knowledge
actually is.
So, in helping inspect the condition of qualitative research in Asia – a continent
saddled with too many North Atlantic/Eurocentric voices and too many Western
metaphysical vices (as was signposted in the previous chapter on ‘ontology’) – this
current chapter on epistemology has spoken up for the potential value of painstak-
ing transdisciplinary cognizance and for painstaking postdisciplinary perspicacity
in knowledge divination. It has emphasised the relative suitability of transdisci-
plinary and postdisciplinary approaches – both of which, admittedly, are time-
consumptive approaches!! – to differential truth-making in uncovering old/Asian
lost mandates of knowing. But it has also spoken up for the potential power of
transdisciplinary sensitivities and of postdisciplinary sensibilities to the scaffolding
of en groupe held knowledges in identifying new/Asian effervescent expressions of
being and becoming. In particular, the postdisciplinary researcher is not just a wist-
ful nostalgic soul who delves into the dust of suppressed or forgotten cultural ways,
she/he has also inevitably to be something of an open-to-the-future soothsayer who
can appositely divine unfolding cultural aspirations and newly-adhering en groupe
fantasmatics.
Luckily – in these efforts to map old traditional Eastern cultural and cosmologi-
cal proclivities vis-a-vis new transitional Eastern cultural and cosmological prefer-
ences – the authors of this chapter have been able to draw upon the nuanced critical
thinking of the Parsi-born/Gujarat-speaking Indian master of ‘third space’ identifi-
cations, Homi Bhabha, as given in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, above. Indeed, the fresh
thought-lines of the Bhabha – the Literary Theorist of the increasingly slippery
colonialist and postcolonialist identities and loyalties of our time (Papoulious
2011:74) – has been contextually most useful in helping steer the later sections of
this chapter through the very messy ambiguous knowledges and around the
ambivalent identifications which are now present in the globalising/glocalising
Asia. Here, in hybrid Asia, the new-sense Asia of the twenty-first century is indeed
‘almost the same but not quite’ (Bhabha 1994: 86) as Asia of yesteryear. It is almost
very nearly the same as Asian populations of previous centuries knew and felt about
themselves and as visiting Westerners presumed and also felt they properly knew!!
Hopefully, more informed and seasoned engagement with Bhabha’s landmark
ideas on the dynamics of psychic communal/collective life (and thereby on the
dynamics of cultural/subcultural en groupe knowledge mongering) can help the
domain of critico-interpretive/advanced qualitative research in Tourism Studies to
even more relevant and even more rigorously interpreted understandings about what
is geographically and locally specific here and there across globalising Asia/glocal-
ising Asia. But perhaps – in a rewrite of this chapter – the contribution of Homi
Bhabha can be (or rather should be!) usefully punctuated via associated cum
competitive critique from other ‘Asian’ (in the broadest sense of the word) theorists
of the spatial and the mobile such as Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak,
Yi-Fu Tuan, etc. Oh dear, that future compendium might then need two chapters
(rather than a single one to do justice to this knotty knowledge-monitoring and this
tremulous truth-sifting!). In Asia, as everywhere else, the longstanding epistemo-
logical fixities of knowing this from that are now being buffeted and sullied (over
recent decades) by the emergent epistemological indeterminacies of ever-unfolding
and ever-refolding identifications. If you do not like the convulsive realities of dou-
ble hermeneutics, it will not be an interpretive bolthole for you.
Acknowledgement The authors of this chapter would like to express their deep gratitude to
Cee-y Dowland (Pineapple Processing: London) for the fast utility of her word-processing services
in the preparation of these pages. Epistemologically, may she travel well across Asia – and reflect
richly – over the coming years as she gets to know at first-hand the varied truthiness of things
amongst different ‘Eastern’ peoples.
References
Balsiger, P. W. (2004). Supradisciplinary research practices: History, objectives and rationale.

Futures, 36(4), 407–421.
Barker, C. (2004). The Sage dictionary of cultural studies. London: Sage.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage. In N. K.
Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodolo-
gies (pp. 497–510). Los Angeles: Sage.
Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, &
R. Schweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social
inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the trans-
disciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan.
Buck, E. (1993). Paradise remade: The politics of culture and history in Hawai’i. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Buckler, J. A. (2004). Towards a new model of general education at Harvard College. Retrieved
April, 14, 2016.
The Cambridge Dictionary. (2017). Cambridge: England
Cambridge University. (1999). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coles, T., Hall, C. M., & Duval, D. T. (2006). Tourism and post-disciplinary enquiry. Current
Issues in Tourism, 9(4–5), 293–319.
Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground rules for good research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (2008). Handbook of critical indigenous methodolo-
gies. Los Angeles: Sage.
Donald, S. H., & Benewick, R. (2005). The state of China atlas. Myriad Editions: Brighton.
Fine, M., Tuck, E., & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2008). Do you believe in Geneva? In N. K. Denzin, Y. S.
Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 157–
180). Los Angeles: Sage.
Gilroy, P. (1997). Diaspora and the detours of identity. In K. Woorward (Ed.), Identity and differ-
ence (pp. 299–346). London: Sage.
Gilroy, P. (2001). The black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. London: Verso.
Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. London: Sage.
Grande, S. (2008). Red pedagogy: The un-methodology. In N. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith
(Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 233–254). Los Angeles: Sage.
Greenblatt, S. (1997). The touch of the real. In S. B. Ortner (1999). The fate of culture: Geertz and
beyond. [Special issue]. Representations 59: 14–29.
Hall, C. M. (1992). Tourism and politics: Policy, power, and place. London: Belhaven.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.
Haverkamp, B. E., & Young, R. A. (2007). Paradigms, purpose, and the role of the literature formu-
lating a rationale for qualitative investigations. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 265–294.
Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L., & Harris, M. (Eds.). (1990). Emic and Etic: The insider/outsider
debate. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hollinshead, K. (1998). Tourism, hybridity and Ambiguity: The relevance of Bhabha’s ‘third
space’ cultures. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(1), 121.
Hollinshead, K. (2009). Tourism and the social production of culture and place: Critical conceptu-
alisations on the projection of location. Tourism Analysis, 13, 639–660.
Hollinshead, K. (2010). Tourism studies and confined understanding: The call for a ‘New Sense’
Post disciplinary imaginary. Tourism Analysis, 15(4), 499–512.
Hollinshead, K. (2012). The under-conceptualisations of tourism studies: The case for postdisci-
plinary knowing. In I. Ateljevic, N. Morgan, & A. Pritchard (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism
studies: Creating an academy of hope (pp. 55–72). London: Routledge.
Hollinshead, K. (2015). The diversiform character of diasporas today: Mapping and monitoring
the polymorphous and/or the protean. Tourism Culture & Communication, 15(3), 173–181.
Hollinshead, K. (2016). Postdisciplinarity and the rise of intellectual openness: The necessity for
plural knowability in tourism studies. Tourism Analysis, 21(4), 349–361. [Special Issue on
Tourism and Postdisciplinarity].
Hollinshead, K., & Caton, K. (in press). Worldmaking and the presentation of peoples and places
in and through tourism. In L. Lowry (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of tourism. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Hollinshead, K., & Ivanova, M. B. (2013). The multilogical imagination: Tourism studies and
the imperative for Postdisciplinary knowing. InThe Routledge handbook of cultural tourism
(pp. 53–62). New York: Routledge.
Hollinshead, K., & Kuon, V. (2013). The Scopic drive of tourism: Foucault and eye dialectics.
In O. Moufakkir & Y. Reisinger (Eds.), The host Gaze in global tourism (pp. 1–18). Boston:
CABI.
Hollinshead, K., & Suleman, R. (2017). Time for fluid acumen: A call for improved tourism stud-
ies dialog with the decolonizing world. Tourism, Culture and Communication, 16(6), 61–74.
Hollinshead, K., & Suleman, R. (in press). The politics of tourism: The mobilisation of value – the
imposition of bias. In L. Lowry (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of tourism. Los Angeles: Sage.
Hollinshead, K., Caton, K., & Ivanova, M. B. (2015). The normalisation of places and spaces: A
glossary on the eye of authority. In Y. Reisinger (Ed.), Transformation and tourism: Host per-
spectives (pp. 36–44). Wallingford: CABI.
Horlick-Jones, T., & Sime, J. (2004). Living on the border: Knowledge, risk and Transdisciplinarity.
Futures, 36(4), 441–456.
Ivanova, M., & Hollinshead, K. (2015). Diasporas disentangled: The cultivation of an open/spiral
imagination in tourism studies. Tourism Culture & Communication, 15(3), 183–193.
Jamal, T., & Robinson, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Sage handbook of tourism studies. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Jaramillo, N., & McLaren, P. (2008). Rethinking cultural pedagogy. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln,
& L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 191–210). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Kahn, J. S. (1995). Culture, multiculture, postculture. London: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Donnor, J. (2005). The moral activist role of critical race theory schol-
arship. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 279–302). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lanfant, M. F. (1995). Internationalization and the challenge to identity. In M. F. Lanfant, J. B.
Allcock, & E. M. Bruner (Eds.), International tourism: identity and change (pp. 24–43).
London: Sage.
Lawrence, R. J. (2010). Beyond disciplinary confinement to imaginative transdisciplinarity. In
V. A. Brown, J. A. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the trans-
disciplinary imagination (pp. 16–30). London: Earthscan.
Lidchi, H. (1997). The poetics and politics of exhibiting other cultures. In S. Hall (Ed.),
Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 120–211). London:
Sage Pp.
Little, R., & Reed, W. (1989). The Confucian renaissance. Annandale: The Federation Press.
Liu, J. H. (2011). Asian epistemologies and contemporary social psychological research. In N. K.
Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodolo-
gies (pp. 213–226). Los Angeles: Sage.
Lowe, L. (1996). Immigrant acts: On Asian-American cultural politics. Durham: Duke University
Press.
McKay, I. (1994). Quest for the folk. Montreal: McGill & Queens Univ. Press.
McKay, I. (2004). Quest for the folk. Montreal: McGill and Queens University Press.
Nicolescu, B. (Ed.). (2008). Transdisciplinarity theory and practice. Creskill: Hampton Press.
Oxford University Press. (2006). Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papoulious, C. (2011). Nomi Bhabha. In P. Hubbard & R. Kitchin (Eds.), Key thinkers on space
and place (pp. 69–75). Los Angeles: Sage.
Pernecky, T. (2016). Epistemology and metaphysics for qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Phillips, D. C. (1990). Postpositivistic science: Myths and realities. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The para-
digm dialog (p. 1990). Newbury Park: Sage.
Picard, D. (2011). Tourism, magic and modernity: Cultivating the human garden. New York:
Berghahn.
Ponterotto, J. G., & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively communicating qualitative research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 35(3), 404–430.
Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures,
36(4), 423–439.
Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
Routledge, P. (2009). Major disasters and general panics: Methodologies of activism, affinity, and
emotion in the clandestine insurgent rebel clown army. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.
Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 388–405). Los Angeles:
Sage.
Russell, J. Y. (2006). Human ecology: A proposal for a critical systems approach for a conceptual
framework. Doctoral thesis. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Russell, J. Y. (2010). A philosophical framework for an open and critical transdisciplinary inquiry.
In V. A. Brown, J. A. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems: Through the
transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 31–60). New York, Earthscan-Routledge.
Schmidt, V. H. (2001). Oversocialised epistemology: A critical appraisal of constructivism.
Sociology, 35(1), 135–157.
Somerville, M. A., & Rapport, D. J. (Eds.). (2003). Transdisciplinarity: Recreating integrated
knowledge. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.
Synder, G. (1974). Turtle Island. New York: New Directions.
Tedlock, B. (2005). The observation of participation and the emergence of public ethnography. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 462–482).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Thompson Klien, J. (2004). Prospects for transdiciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526.
Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638–657.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Vasilachis de Gialdino, I. (1992). Métodos Cualitativos. Los Problemas Teórico Epistemológicos.
Buenos Aires: Centro Editor de América Latina.
Vasilachis de Gialdino, I. (2009, May). Ontological and epistemological foundations of qualitative
research. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(2).
Web References
Gergen, K. (2016) Constructivism: Philosophical and epistemological: http://www.ucs.mun.

ca/~emurphy/stemnet/cle2.html. Accessed 3 Dec 16.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.
Accessed 12.02.17.
View publication stats

Tourism Studies and The Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology For The Inscriptive/Projective Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tourism Studies and The Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology For The Inscriptive/Projective Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Tourism Studies and the Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters of Epistemology

Chapter · February 2018

Keith Hollinshead Rukeya Suleman

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Keith Hollinshead and Rukeya Suleman

Abstract This chapter tracks its companion chapter on ‘ontology’ by scrutinising

K. Hollinshead (*) · R. Suleman

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 51

Keywords Fluid acumen · Plural knowability · Emic(s)/Etic(s) · Double hermeneutics

3.1 I ntroduction: Knowledge in Tourism Scenarios

This chapter on ‘epistemology’ serves as a companion chapter to the previous

solved, but rather it is an ongoing and highly contextual ‘problem’ to be engaged

well-meaning but undialectical (and consequentially toxic) reach of the schooled

3.2  ackground: Elaboration – Extended Comments

• The characteristics of the ‘already known’ (reflexively-speaking) or ‘available’

(ii) What makes particular local or encountered beliefs justified?

3.3  ocus – Conjoint and Coherent Forms of Knowledge-­

reflection. This treatment of the means by and through which epistemological

the construction of ethical epistemologies. It seeks to critique the differences and

3.3.1  irst Focus: Knowledge-Making ‘with’ Diasporic

Box 3.1: The Role of Transdisciplinary Approaches in Inspecting

Box 3.1 (continued)

Box 3.1 (continued)

Box 3.1 (continued)

Table 3.1 (continued)

3.3.2  econd Focus: Knowledge-Making ‘with’ Emergent

In this second area of focus, we will endeavour to reveal what postdisciplinarity

Box 3.2 The Role of Postdisciplinary Approaches in Inspecting New

Box 3.2 (continued)

Table 3.2 (continued)

inquirer may need to position himself/herself as a rather more multivalent individ-

3.4  ndnote: Knowing Old Asian Knowledges – Recognising

From this companion chapter to the immediate previous chapter on ontology, an

humility as they necessarily learn how to marry academic or esoteric forms of

Balsiger, P. W. (2004). Supradisciplinary research practices: History, objectives and rationale.

Gergen, K. (2016) Constructivism: Philosophical and epistemological: http://www.ucs.mun.

View publication stats

You might also like

3.1 I ntroduction: Knowledge in Tourism Scenarios

3.2 ackground: Elaboration – Extended Comments

3.3 ocus – Conjoint and Coherent Forms of Knowledge-

3.3.1 irst Focus: Knowledge-Making ‘with’ Diasporic

3.3.2 econd Focus: Knowledge-Making ‘with’ Emergent

3.4 ndnote: Knowing Old Asian Knowledges – Recognising